Replace KG with Duncan on the Spurs

drza44

again you confuse things.

for example. me saying that duncan was better on the low block does not mean i'm saying that duncan was a better overall offensive player.

me saying that duncan was a better post defender and rim protector does not mean i'm saying duncan was a better overall defensive player.

look. we both agree that the players are very very close to each other in terms of level of play and impact.

so again. would i rather have the versatile guy that doesn't dominate the low block on offense, but can space the floor and play multiple positions?

for me...i'd rather have the low post guy.,

would i rather have the more versatile defender that can guard more positions or the guy that can guard the post and protect the paint better?

for me....i'd rather have the low post defender and rim protector.

you've already conceded that duncan was superior at both of those things. and i've already conceded kg was superior in other areas on both ends.

so for the last time. i'd prefer to have the dominant low post presence on offense and the better paint protector on defense. that is the difference for me. i think that wins more in the playoffs. it has throughout nba history. we'll never know if kg's style could have reproduced what duncan did. its a shame that kg wasted so much of his career in minny.

once again everything you say with i pretty much agree with and i respect your opinion. i just disagree with it.

[QUOTE=ginobli2311]drza44

again you confuse things.

[B]for example. me saying that duncan was better on the low block does not mean i'm saying that duncan was a better overall offensive player.

me saying that duncan was a better post defender and rim protector does not mean i'm saying duncan was a better overall defensive player.[/B]

look. we both agree that the players are very very close to each other in terms of level of play and impact.

so again. would i rather have the versatile guy that doesn't dominate the low block on offense, but can space the floor and play multiple positions?

for me...i'd rather have the low post guy.,

would i rather have the more versatile defender that can guard more positions or the guy that can guard the post and protect the paint better?

for me....i'd rather have the low post defender and rim protector.

you've already conceded that duncan was superior at both of those things. and i've already conceded kg was superior in other areas on both ends.

so for the last time. i'd prefer to have the dominant low post presence on offense and the better paint protector on defense. that is the difference for me. i think that wins more in the playoffs. it has throughout nba history. we'll never know if kg's style could have reproduced what duncan did. its a shame that kg wasted so much of his career in minny.

once again everything you say with i pretty much agree with and i respect your opinion. i just disagree with it.[/QUOTE]

I'm not confused, I'm just forcing clarity into our statements. Take a look at the difference between what you wrote in your earlier statements that led to my disagreement and subsequent rebuttals:

[QUOTE=ginobli2311][B]duncan was a superior offensive player than kg.[/B] kg is more versatile, but duncan had a bigger impact and was far more dominant. kg was never really a dominant offensive player....at least not like duncan. duncan could control an entire game and series on the low block. he had to be doubled and really when you have to double a low post player you are screwed.

so anyone saying kg was on par with duncan offensively in terms if impact isn't on point.

...

[B]so, like always, you need to delve deeper into why duncan is better (which he is). and its because he was more dominant offensively and because he was a better paint protector defensively. [/B]duncan is a superior one on one defender on the low block and a better rim protector and a bit better at off the ball shot blocking as well.
[/quote]

Now, compare that to your statement above. See the difference? In the early statements you were saying point-blank that while it may be close, Duncan was definitely the better player, whereas now you are saying that they each have strengths and weaknesses, and that you simply prefer Duncan's style. That's a big difference, and what I've been trying to get at all along.

You once asked me in this thread what I would consider a reasonable stance for someone preferring Duncan over Garnett. That's it, what you just typed in your most recent statement. If you say "I can't really prove one way or the other which one is better, but I prefer Duncan's style" then ok, I can't really argue with a preference. That's an 'agree to disagree' place. But if you say "They're close, but Duncan is definitively better and thus that's why I prefer Duncan" then that's a different statement, and one I'd ask you to defend as I offer counter-evidence. You seem to have moved away from the latter, and have settled more into the former. If that's the case then yes, I'm (finally) willing to agree-to-disagree.

[QUOTE=drza44]The biggest reason for the 2003 - 2009 APM stats is that those are the only years where the stat is available. 82games.com didn't start keeping track of the +/- stats until 2002-03, and as far as I know that data isn't publicly available anywhere else from before that season.

But practically speaking, those are the main areas of question in this thread anyway. From my post that answers the OP (1st post on page 7 of this thread), I argue that KG would have kept the Spurs contending in '99 and made them contenders in 2000 (the year Duncan was hurt for the postseason). But that he wouldn't have made them contenders in '01 or '02 because Duncan was brilliant those years and still couldn't get the Spurs past the Lakers. So really, the most controversial years as far as this thread goes are the 2003 - 2009 seasons. Those are the years when Duncan led the Spurs to three titles, and those are the years I'm arguing that KG would have been able to accomplish the same or better. So to that end, it makes sense that these are the years that get covered most stringently in this thread (especially since, as I mentioned before, we have more available stats to make better informed analysis for those years).[/QUOTE]

drza44, I appreciate the time you took to explain your POV. However, I don't agree with some of your points. In particular, your using the reason of Garnett just not being in the playoffs as much as Duncan to explain why KG doesn't take over playoff games like TD (see post #90 which you never did address).

I still haven't read anything to convince me that KG could have carried a team such as the 03 Spurs to a championship. So far, only Hakeem has taken a similar type team to a ring.

I agree that on the 07 and 08 championship teams, they are probably both interchangeable. I'm not sure whether the battles against the Suns in 05, 07, 08 would have gone the same way with KG as TD was a big part of why they got by the Suns (they had to double team him & eventually tried Shaq to counter him).

I'll leave you with the thoughts of some one who played many years with the both of them (4 years with KG and 3 years with TD):

Reporters question:

You played alongside the best two PFs of the last 15 years Tim Duncan and Kevin Garnett who both won an MVP award and a championship ring. Who made a bigger impression on you?

Rasho:

I have to say Duncan. He is a true team leader. Garnett is a phenomenal player with great physical abilities but I don't think he is mentally strong enough to be a team leader. If he would have stayed in Minessota I don't think he would ever win a ring. He did the right move by going to Boston because there is Paul Pierce who is a true team leader that scores in clutch moments.

Link(in Slovenian): [url]http://www.rtvslo.si/sport/kosarka/r...entance/231773[/url]

[QUOTE=rmt]drza44, I appreciate the time you took to explain your POV. However, I don't agree with some of your points. In particular, your using the reason of Garnett just not being in the playoffs as much as Duncan to explain why KG doesn't take over playoff games like TD (see post #90 which you never did address). [/quote]

Fair enough, though I do think you misunderstood my point. I wasn't saying that KG doesn't take over playoff games like Duncan, I was saying that he in fact DID take over playoff games like Duncan but that many didn't notice/remember it because he wasn't in as many games. But KG absolutely has taken over his share of postseason games that match up well with Duncan at his best. Some examples:

[B]1999 and 2001[/B]: Garnett played Duncan to a stand still in both series.

[B]2002:[/B] Garnett goes for 19/21/6 in game 1; 31/18/4/3/2 in game 2; and 22/17/5 in game 3. Hard to blame him for the team's loss.

[B]2003:[/B] Garnett goes for 35, 20 and 7 to lead the Wolves to their first win in the series, then follows that up with a 33 point, 14 reb, 4 ast, 4 blk, 2 steal game to steal a second win on the road (including 8 points in the last 4 minutes of the 4th Q).

[B]2004: [/B]That whole playoff run was littered with takeover games. There was his 30/20 game to open the playoffs, his 20/22/10 triple-double, his 30/15/3/3/5 game 3 to lead the Wolves to a road win over the Kings (he scored 15 points in the 4th Q and OT). Then, of course there's the 32/21/2/5/4 effort to win the first game 7 of his career, in which he made all of his team's FGs in the 4th Q.

[B]2008: [/B]Again, there are take-over games throughout the postseason. I see Cavs game 1 where KG overcame Pierce and Allen combining to shoot 2-for-18 from the field with 10 turnovers to lead the Cs to a win...KG scored 28 in that game, including the game-tying jumper with 1 minute left and the game-winning drive with 20 seconds left. [I]"Presumably, LeBron will rebound. So will Pierce and Allen. The difference was that KG didn't have an off night when his team needed him more than any other time this season to be on. THAT is worthy of the label "MVP."[/I] [url]http://www.sportingnews.com/blog/the_sporting_blog/entry/view/8211/shanoffs_wake-up_call_kg_mvp-ish,_bron_not#ixzz0vkdwfz2l[/url]

Or the 33 point effort in game 5 against the Pistons, in which he hit the game-clinching free throws with 3 seconds left on the clock. [I] "Here's the big deal. When Garnett went to the foul line with 3.4 seconds left, the sellout crowd of 18,624 at TD Banknorth Garden, who squirmed in their seats when the Detroit Pistons pulled within 100-99 with 1:36 remaining, held their collective breath. The Celtics needed Garnett, who hit his previous six attempts from the line, to be Mr. Clutch after he induced Rasheed Wallace to commit his fifth personal. After he made the first free throw, Garnett wasted no time in hoisting up the second, leaving no doubt which 2 points ranked as the biggest of his 33-point effort in last night's intense 106-102 victory over the Pistons in Game 5 of the Eastern Conference finals." [/I][url]http://www.boston.com/sports/basketball/celtics/articles/2008/05/29/garnett_made_it_look_routine/[/url]


Or his huge game in the Championship closeout game against the Lakers, where he had 17 points/6 boards/3 assists at the half and only stopped at 26/14/4 because the Lakers gave up and the game turned into one of the biggest blowouts in NBA Finals history. [I]"Setting aside the dramatic comebacks that we

[QUOTE=drza44]I'm not confused, I'm just forcing clarity into our statements. Take a look at the difference between what you wrote in your earlier statements that led to my disagreement and subsequent rebuttals:



Now, compare that to your statement above. See the difference? In the early statements you were saying point-blank that while it may be close, Duncan was definitely the better player, whereas now you are saying that they each have strengths and weaknesses, and that you simply prefer Duncan's style. That's a big difference, and what I've been trying to get at all along.

You once asked me in this thread what I would consider a reasonable stance for someone preferring Duncan over Garnett. That's it, what you just typed in your most recent statement. If you say "I can't really prove one way or the other which one is better, but I prefer Duncan's style" then ok, I can't really argue with a preference. That's an 'agree to disagree' place. But if you say "They're close, but Duncan is definitively better and thus that's why I prefer Duncan" then that's a different statement, and one I'd ask you to defend as I offer counter-evidence. You seem to have moved away from the latter, and have settled more into the former. If that's the case then yes, I'm (finally) willing to agree-to-disagree.[/QUOTE]

ok. that is fine.

but i still think duncan was the superior offensive player because of his low post dominance.

and i still think duncan was the superior defender because of his paint protection.

i was just laying it out very simply for you in my last post. its not just style. there is more substance to duncan's style than kg's. that is how i feel. can i prove it? well....as well as you can prove something that is not factual. you keep posting stats and numbers. and almost always they are either the exact same or duncan is a little bit better overall.

factor that in with what we've seen duncan do (win consistently with a variety of different teams) and i keep coming back to duncan is slightly better than kg.

there is really no argument that kg is better. just opinion. but looking totally at the facts and what has happened.....there is an argument that duncan is slightly better. and that is the difference.

[QUOTE=ginobli2311]ok. that is fine.

but i still think duncan was the superior offensive player because of his low post dominance.

and i still think duncan was the superior defender because of his paint protection.

i was just laying it out very simply for you in my last post. its not just style. there is more substance to duncan's style than kg's. that is how i feel. can i prove it? well....as well as you can prove something that is not factual. you keep posting stats and numbers. and almost always they are either the exact same or duncan is a little bit better overall.

factor that in with what we've seen duncan do (win consistently with a variety of different teams) and i keep coming back to duncan is slightly better than kg.

there is really no argument that kg is better. just opinion. but looking totally at the facts and what has happened.....there is an argument that duncan is slightly better. and that is the difference.[/QUOTE]
How has duncan won consistently with different teams? He's always been on the spurs under the same coach running the same defensive schemes and playing the same slow paced style. For the past three championships past the lockout he has had parker, ginobli, and a bunch of defensive role players. Literally the same thing year in and year out.

KG is the one that has shown that he can make a huge impact on any team he's put on. He dragged terrible casts with the twolves to the WCF and to the playoffs every single year he was with them. And then he went to boston and turned that team into an all time great defensive team and perrenial powerhouse.

I'm sorry but that statement made no sense. Duncan has been a part of the same system for his entire span of dominance and it is KG who has demonstrated the ability to be effective in multiple different systems.

also.

you keep giving us examples of kg's greatness. why? is anyone here disputing that he is great? like i've said before....he's my 14th best player right now and that could change for the better depending on how kg finishes his career...etc.

i could go run down a ton of quotes about duncan or run down all of his killer playoff and finals performances.

we get it. you love kg and think he's better than duncan. thats cool. we just disagree. we don't need you to show us why kg was/is so amazing. we already know this.

you seem to keep having problems with what i say. you have a problem with me saying "duncan was a superior offensive player".... that is my opinion. you have two guys with virtually the same numbers offensively. duncan is slightly more efficient. and duncan was the better low post player. and that puts him over the top for me. its fine if you don't agree. but its more than a valid reason simply because throughout the history of the nba....dominant post players have won titles year in year out.

does this mean kg couldn't have or wouldn't have? of course not.

same thing can be said about the interior defense as well. two players that have a very similar impact, but one is the better interior defender. again....i think interior defense is more important so i'll take duncan.

its not just style. there is substance to that style. i have nba history on my side and i've seen duncan do it. you have the hypothetical of what kg could have done.

and if you really want to get down to it. just look at last year's nba finals. kg couldn't board in that series against bynum/gasol. just look at game 7. 3 rebounds in 38 minutes and his team desperately needed someone to board. you can come up with excuses all you want, but a stronger interior presence would not get hammered so badly on the boards. and once again this brings me back to duncan being the superior interior presence on both ends. kg grabbed over 6 boards in 1 game of the finals this year. and rebounding was of supreme importance.

[QUOTE=tpols]How has duncan won consistently with different teams? He's always been on the spurs under the same coach running the same defensive schemes and playing the same slow paced style. For the past three championships past the lockout he has had parker, ginobli, and a bunch of defensive role players. Literally the same thing year in and year out.

KG is the one that has shown that he can make a huge impact on any team he's put on. He dragged terrible casts with the twolves to the WCF and to the playoffs every single year he was with them. And then he went to boston and turned that team into an all time great defensive team and perrenial powerhouse.

I'm sorry but that statement made no sense. Duncan has been a part of the same system for almost all of his span of dominance and it is KG who has demonstrated the ability to be effective in multiple different systems.[/QUOTE]


he won with robinson and without him. we won with parker and manu and without them.

that is different teams. the spurs with robinson are far different than the spurs with manu/parker.

they are different teams made up of different players. it makes perfect sense.

and the current spurs are far different as well.

[QUOTE=ginobli2311]he won with robinson and without him. we won with parker and manu and without them.

that is different teams. the spurs with robinson are far different than the spurs with manu/parker.

they are different teams made up of different players. it makes perfect sense.[/QUOTE]
He won ONE championship with a still great defensively drob averaging 16/10 as a rookie after the lockout and then got bounced every year until 03. Then he won in the 2000s, while he was in his prime, on the exact same team year in and year out(gino+parker+bowen+defensive role players). His whole prime he played and won with the same team. And his whole career he played for the same team, the same coach, the same slow paced style, and the same schemes. KG has proven much more in this department than duncan.

The Spurs will probably be without the title of 1999 or 2003, but I can still see them winning in 2005 and 2007(assuming Mavs are upset as before). The current Spurs team operates well with or without Duncan, this is a team in which everyone comes to play.

[QUOTE=magnax1]Well, there is no way in hell that Duncan wins Minnesota a championship, but idk whether KG wins 4 or not. I'd say that most likely he does.[/QUOTE]
LMFAO what total shit. He would have at least won one. KG isn't fit to hold Tim's Jock. Tim totally owned his ass when he was in Minny. What an asinine thing to say.

[QUOTE=ginobli2311]also.

you keep giving us examples of kg's greatness. why? is anyone here disputing that he is great? like i've said before....he's my 14th best player right now and that could change for the better depending on how kg finishes his career...etc.

i could go run down a ton of quotes about duncan or run down all of his killer playoff and finals performances.

we get it. you love kg and think he's better than duncan. thats cool. we just disagree. we don't need you to show us why kg was/is so amazing. we already know this. [/quote]

I was responding specifically to rmt, who in post #90 gave some specific examples of Duncan's big postseason performances, then in post #124 called me out for not responding to his previous post about KG not having big postseason performances. Since he asked me twice for that info, I would say it was perfectly reasonable for me to answer as I did. Also, in his post #124, he gave a quote from a player suggesting that KG wasn't a leader on those Celtics...wouldn't the logical thing for me to do, then, be to give him quotes from others that were closer to the situation that supported my statement? Your protest here doesn't make much sense.

[QUOTE=ginobli2311]you seem to keep having problems with what i say. you have a problem with me saying "duncan was a superior offensive player".... that is my opinion. you have two guys with virtually the same numbers offensively. duncan is slightly more efficient. and duncan was the better low post player. and that puts him over the top for me. its fine if you don't agree. but its more than a valid reason simply because throughout the history of the nba....dominant post players have won titles year in year out. [/quote]

I don't have a problem with you saying "Duncan was a superior offensive player", but if you say it then I'm going to ask you to support that with facts and not just supposition. In return, I will post my own analysis. That's the nature of a discussion. But what has happened repeatedly in this thread is, you make a declarative statement in Duncan's favor, I counter with an opinion in KG's favor with lots of objective stats or even anecdotes to support my opinion, then you respond testily (either you call me confused or some other negative comment) and proceed to ignore my analysis. That doesn't lend to a very positive exchange.

Examples (from this thread):

[B]1) You: "duncan commanded a double. kg did not. "[/B] - post 63 of the thread

Me (responding directly to this quote): "This isn't true. I mean, like at all. Garnett was fiercely double-teamed when he was in Minnesota..." with detailed analysis of 4 different offensive sets that Minnesota ran often, where the double would come from, and how KG would counter it - post #79

You: "what i don't agree with is that kg demanded a double as much as duncan. in all of the games i watched of both players in the playoffs....i saw duncan hard doubled far more often." - post 82, and "also. i don't need a history lesson. - post 83

(No response to my analysis outside of a snarky-sounding comment that you don't need a history lesson, and then a re-statement of your opinion).

[B]2) You: "i could talk about kg's inept play in tight games at times" [/B]- post 83

Me (responding directly to this quote): "This is very commonly said. The thing is, I haven't seen the proof... Here's what I found:" followed by a detailed list of each player's clutch stats every year since 2002-03 that shows KG's and Duncan's performance in crunch time to be practically identical. - post 86

You: "you are having a hard time comprehending a few things. its ok. but listen. when someone says "kg's inept play at times"....that does not mean they are saying that he is inept. you need to understand that for purposes of this debate and any debate. you can't use that to go off on a tangent about kg's play late in games. the simple matter is in my opinion kg disappeared late in games more often than duncan. " - post 92

(Again, a bit of snark, followed by dismissing my tangible support as a tangent, then you re-stating your opinion that runs counter to my analysis without any further support).

[B]3) You "duncan was a superior offensive player than kg[/B]. ... so anyone saying kg was on par with duncan offensively in terms if impact isn't on point." - post 34 and "duncan was a better low post player" post 92.

Me: "Our point of contention isn't whether or not Duncan is the better post player, but whether Garnett's other strengths are sufficient to bridge or even go beyond Duncan's. I believe yes, you believe no. But that Duncan is better on the blocks isn't something I'm contending against." post 114

You: "again you confuse things. for example. me saying that duncan was better on the low block does not mean i'm saying that duncan was a better overall offensive player"


See, at this point I do start to get confused. If every time I engage you on a subject, addressing something you said directly, you deflect and then recant what you said, only to ignore my support and re-state your previously held view...how am I supposed to debate with that? What would be the point? At this point I guess you're right, you've stated where you stand, I've offered a counter-opinion with what I believe to be reasonable support, and you disagree. I guess there's no particular reason for us to continue to address each other unless something new is brought to the table.

KG isn't on the Spurs, Duncan is.

Drza,

ginobli often does this in debates. I've never seen him budge from whatever agenda/opinion he comes in with. You could show him stats, proof, whatever, and he'll always nitpick at something, think he has 'beat' you in the debate, and then throw in a little insult. It's really not worth it to debate with him but if you want to continue dismissing his opinions that's fine with me:cheers:

Personally, I think KG is every bit as good a basketball player as duncan and the only reason duncan is thought more highly of is because he won more(while being on vastly superior teams).

drza44,

The reason I posted Rasho's comments was that he [B]played with [U]both[/U] KG and TD for many years[/B]. I could pull out tons of quotes on how good both KG and TD are as leaders but not any from another player who actually played with them both.

To me, Rasho's comments were about the intangibles and KG not being "[B][U]mentally strong enough to be a team leader[/U][/B]" and "[B][U]a true team leader that scores in clutch moments[/U][/B]" as the difference between KG and TD - not stats.

And I'm female - not male.

Duncan might of been better at protecting the rim in close but KG was better at preventing teams from getting there to begin with. KG still anchoring one of the best defensive teams in the league going into his 16th??? season indicates to me that he was probably the better defensive player. With all that being said TD was a superior from my view point but KG is close and the fact that he could lead Boston to a title indicates to me that in his Prime if he had a better cast he would be able to have a few rings. Will I said he could win the 4 TD has, no but I think 2 and maxing out at 3 is possible for him.

[QUOTE=rmt]drza44,

The reason I posted Rasho's comments was that he [B]played with [U]both[/U] KG and TD for many years[/B]. I could pull out tons of quotes on how good both KG and TD are as leaders but not any from another player who actually played with them both.

To me, Rasho's comments were about the intangibles and KG not being "[B][U]mentally strong enough to be a team leader[/U][/B]" and "[B][U]a true team leader that scores in clutch moments[/U][/B]" as the difference between KG and TD - not stats.

And I'm female - not male.[/QUOTE]
As mentioned by drza44, Rasho didnt get along well with KG, so its possible he used an opportunity to bite KG. Or you think as long as comment favors TD, it must be absolute truth? Btw, in '08 or '09 NBA GMs voted who is the best team leader, KG was voted as by far the best, with TD having only 11% of votes.

Or we can talk how he came to Celtics and completely changed team mentality, enforcing different culture and players not only had to step up (including stars like Pierce and Ray), but also were held accountable by KG. If anything, it shows strong mentality, weak ones dont (and even cant) do that :cheers:

What concerns clutch moments, KG doesnt mind to pass to an open teammate if he is defended, thats just smart play, and not a sign of weakness. Bird did that, Jordan did as well, so did Russell, three greatest clutch players of All-time. On the other hand, if we take your words "a true team leader that scores in clutch moments" as the definition of clutchness, thats what Kobe do, forces the shot regardless if its smart play or not. I guess to each its own what they want of the clutch player to do.

We can also instead of rehashing generic claims go for the data, and as posted by drza44, TD and KG clutch data is a carbon copy, [B]very [/B]similar. We dont even have to go far in the past, in '08 Celtics championship season, with two amazing clutch players like Ray and Pierce, it was KG who was BY FAR the best 4th quarter player in the Playoffs, by both as leading scorer, rebounder, and with much better efficiency than either Pierce or Ray. I'm not even talking about defense (clutch as well), which was primary reason why Celtics won at all.

[QUOTE=BoNafidde]Do they still win 4 championships?
Is KG crowned the GOAT PF?

Or

Does Duncan lead the T Wolves to championships?[/QUOTE]


Can we replace ur mom with ur dad?

That should answer all ur question

[QUOTE=drza44]I was responding specifically to rmt, who in post #90 gave some specific examples of Duncan's big postseason performances, then in post #124 called me out for not responding to his previous post about KG not having big postseason performances. Since he asked me twice for that info, I would say it was perfectly reasonable for me to answer as I did. Also, in his post #124, he gave a quote from a player suggesting that KG wasn't a leader on those Celtics...wouldn't the logical thing for me to do, then, be to give him quotes from others that were closer to the situation that supported my statement? Your protest here doesn't make much sense.



I don't have a problem with you saying "Duncan was a superior offensive player", but if you say it then I'm going to ask you to support that with facts and not just supposition. In return, I will post my own analysis. That's the nature of a discussion. But what has happened repeatedly in this thread is, you make a declarative statement in Duncan's favor, I counter with an opinion in KG's favor with lots of objective stats or even anecdotes to support my opinion, then you respond testily (either you call me confused or some other negative comment) and proceed to ignore my analysis. That doesn't lend to a very positive exchange.

Examples (from this thread):

[B]1) You: "duncan commanded a double. kg did not. "[/B] - post 63 of the thread

Me (responding directly to this quote): "This isn't true. I mean, like at all. Garnett was fiercely double-teamed when he was in Minnesota..." with detailed analysis of 4 different offensive sets that Minnesota ran often, where the double would come from, and how KG would counter it - post #79

You: "what i don't agree with is that kg demanded a double as much as duncan. in all of the games i watched of both players in the playoffs....i saw duncan hard doubled far more often." - post 82, and "also. i don't need a history lesson. - post 83

(No response to my analysis outside of a snarky-sounding comment that you don't need a history lesson, and then a re-statement of your opinion).

[B]2) You: "i could talk about kg's inept play in tight games at times" [/B]- post 83

Me (responding directly to this quote): "This is very commonly said. The thing is, I haven't seen the proof... Here's what I found:" followed by a detailed list of each player's clutch stats every year since 2002-03 that shows KG's and Duncan's performance in crunch time to be practically identical. - post 86

You: "you are having a hard time comprehending a few things. its ok. but listen. when someone says "kg's inept play at times"....that does not mean they are saying that he is inept. you need to understand that for purposes of this debate and any debate. you can't use that to go off on a tangent about kg's play late in games. the simple matter is in my opinion kg disappeared late in games more often than duncan. " - post 92

(Again, a bit of snark, followed by dismissing my tangible support as a tangent, then you re-stating your opinion that runs counter to my analysis without any further support).

[B]3) You "duncan was a superior offensive player than kg[/B]. ... so anyone saying kg was on par with duncan offensively in terms if impact isn't on point." - post 34 and "duncan was a better low post player" post 92.

Me: "Our point of contention isn't whether or not Duncan is the better post player, but whether Garnett's other strengths are sufficient to bridge or even go beyond Duncan's. I believe yes, you believe no. But that Duncan is better on the blocks isn't something I'm contending against." post 114

You: "again you confuse things. for example. me saying that duncan was better on the low block does not mean i'm saying that duncan was a better overall offensive player"


See, at this point I do start to get confused. If every time I engage you on a subject, addressing something you said directly, you deflect and then recant what you said, only to ignore my support and re-state your previously held view...how am I supposed to debate with that? What would be the point? At this point I guess you're right, you've stated where you stand, I've offered a counter-opinion with what I believe to be reasonable support, and you disagree. I guess there's no particular reason for us to continue to address each other unless something new is brought to the table.[/QUOTE]


ok.

i think duncan was superior offensively. why? because his numbers are virtually identical and he's the better low post player. end of story. i'd rather have the dominant low post presence than the versatile guy.

i don't know why i keep having to say that. it won't show up in the stats what style these players play.

also. you never responded to my point about kg getting absolutely destroyed on the boards in the finals. just utterly manhandled down low on the glass. and that is where your versatility just doesn't help.

so that would be a problem when kg has to go up against some tough front lines....which he inevitably would have.

and again. not everything shows up in the stats. although i don't know why you keep referencing stats when all the stats and advanced stats are either even or slightly favor duncan.

post play and interior defense (in my opinion) wins title and are the single most important aspect of basketball. this has been true looking back at the history of the nba. and tim duncan was simply better than kg at these aspects of the game (which you conceded already)

therefore, because duncan is better at those aspects of the game, i'll take duncan over kg simply because their level of play and impact is the same.

basically your argument goes:

"you can't prove duncan was better than kg because i can rattle off stats and head to head games and instances in which kg was great and kg could have done this or that"

well. ok. that is fine. and you can't prove at all what kg would have done as the man on a title team in his prime. but we did just witness kg get destroyed in game 7 of the nba finals by gasol/bynum. we did just witness kg come up extremely small on the boards in the nba finals. i've never seen duncan dominated on the glass that badly in the finals or really any playoff series. only 1 game over 6 boards? not good. not good at all.

i have so much i could hammer kg with but i don't want to because i love kg. and that is the problem with debates like this. i'm trying to debate you without being hard on kg.....and just praising duncan.

so i'll summarize exactly my point and you tell me what is wrong with them in your mind:

1. duncan was a better low post player
2. duncan was a better interior defender

because i think those two things are the most important aspect of winning in the nba.....i have duncan slightly over kg because overall their level of play and impact is so similar

forget everything else that has been said. please tell me if you refute those two things or their importance.

[QUOTE=ginobli2311]ok.

i think duncan was superior offensively. why? because his numbers are virtually identical and he's the better low post player. end of story. i'd rather have the dominant low post presence than the versatile guy.

i don't know why i keep having to say that. it won't show up in the stats what style these players play.

also. you never responded to my point about kg getting absolutely destroyed on the boards in the finals. just utterly manhandled down low on the glass. and that is where your versatility just doesn't help.

so that would be a problem when kg has to go up against some tough front lines....which he inevitably would have.

and again. not everything shows up in the stats. although i don't know why you keep referencing stats when all the stats and advanced stats are either even or slightly favor duncan.

post play and interior defense (in my opinion) wins title and are the single most important aspect of basketball. this has been true looking back at the history of the nba. and tim duncan was simply better than kg at these aspects of the game (which you conceded already)

therefore, because duncan is better at those aspects of the game, i'll take duncan over kg simply because their level of play and impact is the same.

basically your argument goes:

"you can't prove duncan was better than kg because i can rattle off stats and head to head games and instances in which kg was great and kg could have done this or that"

well. ok. that is fine. and you can't prove at all what kg would have done as the man on a title team in his prime. but we did just witness kg get destroyed in game 7 of the nba finals by gasol/bynum. we did just witness kg come up extremely small on the boards in the nba finals. i've never seen duncan dominated on the glass that badly in the finals or really any playoff series. only 1 game over 6 boards? not good. not good at all.

i have so much i could hammer kg with but i don't want to because i love kg. and that is the problem with debates like this. i'm trying to debate you without being hard on kg.....and just praising duncan.

so i'll summarize exactly my point and you tell me what is wrong with them in your mind:

1. duncan was a better low post player
2. duncan was a better interior defender

because i think those two things are the most important aspect of winning in the nba.....i have duncan slightly over kg because overall their level of play and impact is so similar

forget everything else that has been said. please tell me if you refute those two things or their importance.[/QUOTE]
Yea.. that kind of bs because this is not prime KG anymore. This is old KG. We aren't judging duncan last year for getting swept by the suns are we? Because it's only fair if you want to criticize garnett and his performance last year.

[QUOTE=tpols]Yea.. that kind of bs because this is not prime KG anymore. This is old KG. We aren't judging duncan last year for getting swept by the suns are we? Because it's only fair if you want to criticize garnett and his performance last year.[/QUOTE]

the problem is that it would have happened in kg's prime more often if he had to go up against a great front line unless he had a good big center next to him.

duncan is simply more suited to dominate the paint against other teams front lines.

and duncan still got 10 boards a game last year in the playoffs. kg averaged 7....and like 5 in the finals.

do you KG fans honestly believe he would have won in 03 with that Spurs cast? That team was not very good, and that was Duncan's most impressive CHIP IMO. Any other year I can let it slide, but that year he totally carried the Spurs that entire playoff putting up ridiculous stats and beat some great teams in the Suns, Lakers, and Mavs. DRob was on in last legs and really didn't do much until the finals against a pretty bad Nets team.

I have never seen anyone carry a team like that since Hakeem.

Someone post the Artest quote.

[QUOTE=ginobli2311]ok.
i think duncan was superior offensively. why? because his numbers are virtually identical and he's the better low post player. end of story. i'd rather have the dominant low post presence than the versatile guy.
[/quote]
The simple counter is that given more room by having other dependable scorers and KG's scores more. He had a lot of responsibilites on top of his scoring.
[quote]
i don't know why i keep having to say that. it won't show up in the stats what style these players play.[/quote] Neither does the other team strategy to stop one dependable scorer minus a much more structured, all around better offensive deployment, creating for non-scorers to score - not just assist, leading his team in every offensive strategy, the distraction of leading the league in rebounds and somehow efficiency for three years. A lot doesn't come up on the score board.
[quote]
also. you never responded to my point about kg getting absolutely destroyed on the boards in the finals. just utterly manhandled down low on the glass. and that is where your versatility just doesn't help. [/quote] Comon Gin, you don't read the papers or bother putting things in context. You really think a [B]healthy [/B]KG that lead the league in rebounding for three years while Duncan was in his prime couldn't out rebound Gasol whom he had a 14 reb to 8 advantage careerwise a couple of years back.

[quote]
post play and interior defense (in my opinion) wins title and are the single most important aspect of basketball. this has been true looking back at the history of the nba. and tim duncan was simply better than kg at these aspects of the game (which you conceded already)[/quote]
Welcome to a new century!!! Jordan, Wade, Kobe outnumber the big boys.
Its not about where you play - its about how you play. KG was at the helm of one of the best defensive teams ever. But I will repeat TD had some winning Hoodoo going on, tho.

[QUOTE=Yung D-Will]And then we come to the harsh reality that none of these hypotheticals mean a thing and Duncan has 4 championships whiles Garnett only has one.[/QUOTE]

Garnett got drafted by the Timberwolves while Duncan got drafted by the Spurs.

[QUOTE=Pointguard]
Comon Gin, you don't read the papers or bother putting things in context. You really think a [B]healthy [/B]KG that lead the league in rebounding for three years while Duncan was in his prime couldn't out rebound Gasol whom he had a 14 reb to 8 advantage careerwise a couple of years back.
[/QUOTE]

or it could be something inevitable like aging. notice how kg's rebounding numbers are steadily decreasing every year and Gasol's rebounding numbers have increased? kg couldn't get any rebounds in that series because gasol took them all away from him.

What's up with people not being able to properly express a replacement scenario lately? A few days ago we had "replace Kobe with MJ on the '91-'93 Bulls" and now we have "replace KG with Duncan" when what's actually being asked is what happens if we replace Duncan with KG. Hence, the thread title should be "replace KG FOR Duncan" or, better still, "replace Duncan with KG."

[QUOTE=Wuxia]or it could be something inevitable like aging. notice how kg's rebounding numbers are steadily decreasing every year and Gasol's rebounding numbers have increased? kg couldn't get any rebounds in that series because gasol took them all away from him.[/QUOTE]
Wow, you tell one guy he was lost... and a second comes behind him bragging about his lack of a GPS. Is this the land of the lost? The last three days here.... its like the board needs an intelligence interpreter. Yo, I feel like Mr. Rogers in here, sometimes.

KG didn't get rebounds because he wasn't fully healed - its in the dang quotation! KG has been hurt the last two years. However if they played earlier this year, Gasol would have been outrebounded again. If KG was healthy there are some big differences. The reason why people call Gasol, Gasoft til this day is because KG left him feeling like the Tin Man the last time he was healthy. Gasol isn't a big time rebounder now either.

The Spurs won titles mainly because of Duncan's low post game and defense. When he sucked in the defensive attention his shooters benefitted from wide open jumpers and moving the ball around before the defense could recover.

I don't think KG is taking down Shaq and the Lakers in '03 with a rookie Ginobili and 2nd year Tony Parker. I doubt KG is taking down the Pistons in 2005 either...even with Ginobili and Parker reaching star status. KG's game is too perimeter oriented...similar to Dirk and Chris Webber. When that jumpshot isn't falling he can't punish a team in the paint the way Duncan can. When you have perimeter players like Ginobili and Parker the last thing you need is a 7 footer out on the perimeter taking long jumpers pretending he's a freakin guard. You need a PF that's gonna go down on the low block, do work and get your team high percentage shots by scoring or sucking in double teams and getting shooters wide open. That's what Duncan did year after year in his prime for the Spurs. You can't replace that with KG.

[QUOTE=tpols]How has duncan won consistently with different teams? He's always been on the spurs under the same coach running the same defensive schemes and playing the same slow paced style. For the past three championships past the lockout he has had parker, ginobli, and a bunch of defensive role players. Literally the same thing year in and year out.

KG is the one that has shown that he can make a huge impact on any team he's put on. He dragged terrible casts with the twolves to the WCF and to the playoffs every single year he was with them. And then he went to boston and turned that team into an all time great defensive team and perrenial powerhouse.

I'm sorry but that statement made no sense. Duncan has been a part of the same system for his entire span of dominance and it is KG who has demonstrated the ability to be effective in multiple different systems.[/QUOTE]

Oh look, a stupid post by tpols who lies and makes up bogus stats to suit his argument. What a shocker this is!


#1: Duncan has played with vastly different teams. No player on the 2007 championship Spurs was on the 1999 Spurs. The turnover from the 1999 squad and the 2003 squad was huge, as were the 2003 to 2007 squads.

Proof

[B]In 2003, only three players (aside from Duncan), were still on the team from the 1999 championship squad[/B]. Those three players were:

A vastly declind David Robinson who was only putting up 7.8/6.6/1 per game in the playoffs, nearly equally declined throughout the regular season (8.5 ppg), as opposed to the '99 DRob who was good for 16/10/3 in both the regular season and the playoffs, not to mention a much bigger defensive force who could stay on the floor for more than a mere 23 minutes a game.

Malik Rose, a 6'7" roleplayer.

And Steve Kerr, a guy who played 12 minutes a game, played below average D', and was there for nothing but taking 2-3 3s when he was in ala Matt Bonner now, only far worse.

The 2003 Spurs were clearly vastly different from the 1999 Spurs. Two roleplayers were still on the team (one of which was extremely unimportant in terms of overall impact). And one very declined former star who was a vital cog in the 1999 title run.


Now look at the turnover from the 2003 squad and the 2007 squad.

[B]Only three players from the 2003 Spurs team were on the 2007 team. [/B]

[B]Zero players from 1999 were on the 2007 team besides Duncan.[/B]

So don't sit there like a clown and pretend like Duncan's had the same cast around him forever. He hasn't. Just like now, he has only three players from the 2007 squad on the 2011 squad. Zero from 1999, two from 2003.


Your excuse making and explaining away is getting extremely old. It's all you ever do.

Duncan has won repeatedly with vastly different teams because he's a great player who does not need great pieces around him to win. 2003 is a perfect example of this. KG was consistent in nothing but underachieving while putting up great stats.

In the end, Duncan won at a minimum of an over .600 pace every single seasond despite changing rosters. KG has repeatedly faltered when his rosters have changed, sometimes not even cracking .500, and rarely cracking 50 win at all prior to going to play with Ray Allen and Paul Peirce.

You can make excuses all you want, but in the end, KG couldn't make it happen. Duncan did. The Spurs had no titles pre-Duncan just like the Wolves didn't. Duncan brought SA four. KG: zero to Minnesota.

So no, I would say KG hasn't demonstrated the ability to be effective in different systems any better than Duncan, since A: He barely won at all in Minnesota. B: He's been pretty average in 2 of his 3 years in Boston. Duncan is now playing in a fast-paced offense and doing just fine, with the best record in the NBA and top power ranked team. And C: He didn't win titles in 2 different systems. He only won one in one system.

Duncan can play his game regardless of the roster that's out there. He wins period. He also does more of then non-statistical aspects of the game. He's a better leader, and a better winner.

KG put up good stats on underachieving teams. Duncan put up good stats while winning titles. That's why Duncan is better than KG. He willed his team to win no matter who he had around him. KG got lost in the shuffle multiple times, failing to even reach .500.

[QUOTE=SinJackal]Oh look, a stupid post by tpols who lies and makes up bogus stats to suit his argument. What a shocker this is!


#1: Duncan has played with vastly different teams. No player on the 2007 championship Spurs was on the 1999 Spurs. The turnover from the 1999 squad and the 2003 squad was huge, as were the 2003 to 2007 squads.

Proof

[B]In 2003, only three players (aside from Duncan), were still on the team from the 1999 championship squad[/B]. Those three players were:

A vastly declind David Robinson who was only putting up 7.8/6.6/1 per game in the playoffs, nearly equally declined throughout the regular season (8.5 ppg), as opposed to the '99 DRob who was good for 16/10/3 in both the regular season and the playoffs, not to mention a much bigger defensive force who could stay on the floor for more than a mere 23 minutes a game.

Malik Rose, a 6'7" roleplayer.

And Steve Kerr, a guy who played 12 minutes a game, played below average D', and was there for nothing but taking 2-3 3s when he was in ala Matt Bonner now, only far worse.

The 2003 Spurs were clearly vastly different from the 1999 Spurs. Two roleplayers were still on the team (one of which was extremely unimportant in terms of overall impact). And one very declined former star who was a vital cog in the 1999 title run.


Now look at the turnover from the 2003 squad and the 2007 squad.

[B]Only three players from the 2003 Spurs team were on the 2007 team. [/B]

[B]Zero players from 1999 were on the 2007 team besides Duncan.[/B]

So don't sit there like a clown and pretend like Duncan's had the same cast around him forever. He hasn't. Just like now, he has only three players from the 2007 squad on the 2011 squad. Zero from 1999, two from 2003.


Your excuse making and explaining away is getting extremely old. It's all you ever do.

Duncan has won repeatedly with vastly different teams because he's a great player who does not need great pieces around him to win. 2003 is a perfect example of this. KG was consistent in nothing but underachieving while putting up great stats.

In the end, Duncan won at a minimum of an over .600 pace every single seasond despite changing rosters. KG has repeatedly faltered when his rosters have changed, sometimes not even cracking .500, and rarely cracking 50 win at all prior to going to play with Ray Allen and Paul Peirce.

You can make excuses all you want, but in the end, KG couldn't make it happen. Duncan did. The Spurs had no titles pre-Duncan just like the Wolves didn't. Duncan brought SA four. KG: zero to Minnesota.

So no, I would say KG hasn't demonstrated the ability to be effective in different systems any better than Duncan, since A: He barely won at all in Minnesota. B: He's been pretty average in 2 of his 3 years in Boston. Duncan is now playing in a fast-paced offense and doing just fine, with the best record in the NBA and top power ranked team. And C: He didn't win titles in 2 different systems. He only won one in one system.

Duncan can play his game regardless of the roster that's out there. He wins period. He also does more of then non-statistical aspects of the game. He's a better leader, and a better winner.

KG put up good stats on underachieving teams. Duncan put up good stats while winning titles. That's why Duncan is better than KG. He willed his team to win no matter who he had around him. KG got lost in the shuffle multiple times, failing to even reach .500.[/QUOTE]


good post. tpols is just a moron. duncan has won with vastly different teams....just like i said.

i do think you are a little hard on kg....but i guess its necessary to drive home our points. kg was a great player....he just wasn't duncan. and its not just titles. duncan was simply a better basketball player for all the reasons i gave.....and those qualities made it easier for the spurs to win titles with duncan than it would have been with kg.

its hard for me because i love kg and think he's a great great player that got screwed for the majority of his career playing on terrible teams with little to no help and poor coaching.

but that doesn't mean much for this debate.

duncan was better. all the stats in the world won't change my opinion on what i saw with my eyes for over a decade now. and the stats favor duncan as well. LOL

[QUOTE=SinJackal]Oh look, a stupid post by tpols who lies and makes up bogus stats to suit his argument. What a shocker this is!


#1: Duncan has played with vastly different teams. No player on the 2007 championship Spurs was on the 1999 Spurs. The turnover from the 1999 squad and the 2003 squad was huge, as were the 2003 to 2007 squads.

Proof

[B]In 2003, only three players (aside from Duncan), were still on the team from the 1999 championship squad[/B]. Those three players were:

A vastly declind David Robinson who was only putting up 7.8/6.6/1 per game in the playoffs, nearly equally declined throughout the regular season (8.5 ppg), as opposed to the '99 DRob who was good for 16/10/3 in both the regular season and the playoffs, not to mention a much bigger defensive force who could stay on the floor for more than a mere 23 minutes a game.

Malik Rose, a 6'7" roleplayer.

And Steve Kerr, a guy who played 12 minutes a game, played below average D', and was there for nothing but taking 2-3 3s when he was in ala Matt Bonner now, only far worse.

The 2003 Spurs were clearly vastly different from the 1999 Spurs. Two roleplayers were still on the team (one of which was extremely unimportant in terms of overall impact). And one very declined former star who was a vital cog in the 1999 title run.


Now look at the turnover from the 2003 squad and the 2007 squad.

[B]Only three players from the 2003 Spurs team were on the 2007 team. [/B]

[B]Zero players from 1999 were on the 2007 team besides Duncan.[/B]

So don't sit there like a clown and pretend like Duncan's had the same cast around him forever. He hasn't. Just like now, he has only three players from the 2007 squad on the 2011 squad. Zero from 1999, two from 2003.


Your excuse making and explaining away is getting extremely old. It's all you ever do.

Duncan has won repeatedly with vastly different teams because he's a great player who does not need great pieces around him to win. 2003 is a perfect example of this. KG was consistent in nothing but underachieving while putting up great stats.

In the end, Duncan won at a minimum of an over .600 pace every single seasond despite changing rosters. KG has repeatedly faltered when his rosters have changed, sometimes not even cracking .500, and rarely cracking 50 win at all prior to going to play with Ray Allen and Paul Peirce.

You can make excuses all you want, but in the end, KG couldn't make it happen. Duncan did. The Spurs had no titles pre-Duncan just like the Wolves didn't. Duncan brought SA four. KG: zero to Minnesota.

So no, I would say KG hasn't demonstrated the ability to be effective in different systems any better than Duncan, since A: He barely won at all in Minnesota. B: He's been pretty average in 2 of his 3 years in Boston. Duncan is now playing in a fast-paced offense and doing just fine, with the best record in the NBA and top power ranked team. And C: He didn't win titles in 2 different systems. He only won one in one system.

Duncan can play his game regardless of the roster that's out there. He wins period. He also does more of then non-statistical aspects of the game. He's a better leader, and a better winner.

KG put up good stats on underachieving teams. Duncan put up good stats while winning titles. That's why Duncan is better than KG. He willed his team to win no matter who he had around him. KG got lost in the shuffle multiple times, failing to even reach .500.[/QUOTE]
For 75% of his championships and for all of the championships duncan won in his prime he had ginobli, parker, and bowen along with the same coach and the same schemes/same team etc.

Garnett turned a minnesota team into a contender that very few players in the history of the game could. Then he went to boston and turned them into a defensive powerhouse and led them as their best player to a ring. Two different teams, two different spans of dominance.

Duncan's a great player but he's done it on the same team every year like I said before.

Nice try though:cheers: (btw this discussion is now done, you want to talk more pm me)

[QUOTE=ginobli2311]good post. tpols is just a moron. duncan has won with vastly different teams....just like i said.

i do think you are a little hard on kg....but i guess its necessary to drive home our points. kg was a great player....he just wasn't duncan. and its not just titles. duncan was simply a better basketball player for all the reasons i gave.....and those qualities made it easier for the spurs to win titles with duncan than it would have been with kg.

its hard for me because i love kg and think he's a great great player that got screwed for the majority of his career playing on terrible teams with little to no help and poor coaching.

but that doesn't mean much for this debate.

duncan was better. all the stats in the world won't change my opinion on what i saw with my eyes for over a decade now. and the stats favor duncan as well. LOL[/QUOTE]

Well, I think KG has been good enough to be considered a top 5 PF easily. I have him at #4 behind Duncan, Malone, and Barkley. But I don't think it's as oversimplified as some people are making it out to be.

It is not just a matter of who got drafted where. KG could have left Minnesota at multiple different points, and chose not to. KG was also simply not as good of a player as Duncan. It's definitely NOT that simple.

If KG really did get drafted to the Spurs, he would not have won four titles. His game was just not what was needed for those Spurs teams to win. Duncan's was. I could see him perhaps winning in 2007, but 2003 I doubt it, and in 1999 he wasn't good enough to make the same impact Duncan did. 2005 maybe, but the Pistons were tough.


The best players of all time have a history of always winning and always getting into the Finals. How many guys can you say "oh well he was on a bad team. . ." for? Barely any, since all the greats managed to win with the teams they had.

That's my biggest gripe with KG. He's the only "all time great" to struggle through seasons repeatedly. He always managed to put up good stats, but that didn't translate into a respectable wins a good portion of the time.

Meanwhile Duncan's been a 50+ game winner every year his whole career (or on a well over 50 win pace in the shortened year), been in the Finals 4 times (won all 4), been in the WCF several times. . .KG's been in the WCF once prior to Boston, never the Finals. Look at the other recent greats. . .Malone got there twice. Drexler got there twice. Hakeem three times. Shaq a crapload of times (3 different teams no less, and may do it with 4 this year). Robinson twice (and WCF prior to Duncan, with several 50+ win seasons). Jordan six times. Kobe 7 times. LeBron's been there already. Wade's been there and won already. Dirk got there once, been in the WCF multiple times. Gary Payton got to the Finals.. Barkley got there.

KG only got to the WCF once before going to Boston, never got out of the first round otherwise. KG was a big cog in the first Boston Finals appearance, but not so much the second time (reflected in his play and stats. . .last year is early enough for us all to remember). KG's in the low end of the all time greats, in terms of winning, conference finals, and finals appearances. Duncan is in the high end. While I think rings are an overrated way to measure who's better in general, I don't think long-term success is a bad way to measure players at all. Duncan's been successful pretty much every season. . .KG has only been noticeably successful 2-3 seasons.

That's my main measuring stick here. Plus the fact that I think the parts of Duncan's game that he's better at than KG in are more important to team success and playoff success. KG is a great player. Definitely. But he is not a top tier great imo due to his lack of success. Every other all time great managed to win regardless of their rosters. I think there is something to be said for that.

So just to be clear, I think KG is easily an all time great. Top 30 even. I'm not trying to say he doesn't deserve a high ranking. He does. But his lack of success definitely hurts his reputation to me.

[QUOTE=tpols]For 75% of his championships and for all of the championships duncan won in his prime he had ginobli, parker, and bowen along with the same coach and the same schemes/same team etc.

Garnett turned a minnesota team into a contender that very few players in the history of the game could. Then he went to boston and turned them into a defensive powerhouse and led them as their best player to a ring. Two different teams, two different spans of dominance.

Duncan's a great player but he's done it on the same team every year like I said before.

Nice try though:cheers: (btw this discussion is now done, you want to talk more pm me)[/QUOTE]

What relevance does that have to the discussion? Duncan won titles with completely different cores, including two titles with zero players that were on the team for his first title. Somethign which 100% debunks your claim that he had the same team for all his titles.

Also, you are arguing KG and Duncan. KG's only title was with Ray Allen and Paul Pierce. If KG manages to win again this year, it would be with Ray Allen and Paul Pierce (and Rondo and Perkins). I believe that makes your intended point a joke, and completely worthless the second that you typed it out.

Garnett did not win in Minnesota. And I would debate that he turned them into a contender. They had Sam Cassell and Latreel Sprewell added to the team. KG didn't turn that team into anything prior to that, and the team flopped the year after they reached the WCF. I don't consider that to be "dominance". He had one season that was basically comparable to what would be considered an average season for Duncan in terms of success. Mid 50's wins, WCF and done. Average season, and considered a failure of a season for a player like Duncan.


The Boston team also had a lot more turnover than just KG. I think you are giving KG too much credit. Rondo and Perkins became a year older, and a year better. Glen Davis was added. Ray Allen was added. Eddie House was added. Sam Cassell was added. PJ Brown was added. Tom Thibodeau, the well-known defensive mind behind the Celtics' defense, was also added to the team that offseason. KG was not the only new piece. Do not give him all the credit.

I already proved Duncan didn't win with the same team every year, so I'm not sure why you're repeating that lie of a statement again and acting like somehow ends the discussion. You were wrong again as usual.

[QUOTE=SinJackal]Well, I think KG has been good enough to be considered a top 5 PF easily. I have him at #4 behind Duncan, Malone, and Barkley. But I don't think it's as oversimplified as some people are making it out to be.

It is not just a matter of who got drafted where. KG could have left Minnesota at multiple different points, and chose not to. KG was also simply not as good of a player as Duncan. It's definitely NOT that simple.

If KG really did get drafted to the Spurs, he would not have won four titles. His game was just not what was needed for those Spurs teams to win. Duncan's was. I could see him perhaps winning in 2007, but 2003 I doubt it, and in 1999 he wasn't good enough to make the same impact Duncan did. 2005 maybe, but the Pistons were tough.


The best players of all time have a history of always winning and always getting into the Finals. How many guys can you say "oh well he was on a bad team. . ." for? Barely any, since all the greats managed to win with the teams they had.

That's my biggest gripe with KG. He's the only "all time great" to struggle through seasons repeatedly. He always managed to put up good stats, but that didn't translate into a respectable wins a good portion of the time.

Meanwhile Duncan's been a 50+ game winner every year his whole career (or on a well over 50 win pace in the shortened year), been in the Finals 4 times (won all 4), been in the WCF several times. . .KG's been in the WCF once prior to Boston, never the Finals. Look at the other recent greats. . .Malone got there twice. Drexler got there twice. Hakeem three times. Shaq a crapload of times (3 different teams no less, and may do it with 4 this year). Robinson twice (and WCF prior to Duncan, with several 50+ win seasons). Jordan six times. Kobe 7 times. LeBron's been there already. Wade's been there and won already. Dirk got there once, been in the WCF multiple times. Gary Payton got to the Finals.. Barkley got there.

KG only got to the WCF once before going to Boston, never got out of the first round otherwise. KG was a big cog in the first Boston Finals appearance, but not so much the second time (reflected in his play and stats. . .last year is early enough for us all to remember). KG's in the low end of the all time greats, in terms of winning, conference finals, and finals appearances. Duncan is in the high end. While I think rings are an overrated way to measure who's better in general, I don't think long-term success is a bad way to measure players at all. Duncan's been successful pretty much every season. . .KG has only been noticeably successful 2-3 seasons.

That's my main measuring stick here. Plus the fact that I think the parts of Duncan's game that he's better at than KG in are more important to team success and playoff success. KG is a great player. Definitely. But he is not a top tier great imo due to his lack of success. Every other all time great managed to win regardless of their rosters. I think there is something to be said for that.

So just to be clear, I think KG is easily an all time great. Top 30 even. I'm not trying to say he doesn't deserve a high ranking. He does. But his lack of success definitely hurts his reputation to me.[/QUOTE]

yea. kg's loyalty really hurt him. kg even admitted this....he should have left when he had the chance. but he didn't want to and wanted to remain loyal to the team that drafted him. and it really hurt his career.

most of the all time greats found a way to win. although again, circumstances allowed that to happen. unfortunately for kg....those circumstances didn't occur until after his 10 best years. and its a shame.

we just witnessed lebron play 7 years of his career on a team that didn't give him much of a chance to win titles. and he got out and gave himself a chance to win now, but i hardly think its fair to say that lebron doesn't belong in the same sentence as hakeem or kobe because of his failure to win in cleveland.

i agree with almost everything you say. i just think titles can be a bit over-rated. not in duncan's case, but in a lot of other cases. i just don't think titles make a player great.

[QUOTE=SinJackal]What relevance does that have to the discussion? Duncan won titles with completely different cores, including two titles with zero players that were on the team for his first title. Somethign which 100% debunks your claim that he had the same team for all his titles.

Also, you are arguing KG and Duncan. KG's only title was with Ray Allen and Paul Pierce. If KG manages to win again this year, it would be with Ray Allen and Paul Pierce (and Rondo and Perkins). I believe that makes your intended point a joke, and completely worthless the second that you typed it out.

Garnett did not win in Minnesota. And I would debate that he turned them into a contender. They had Sam Cassell and Latreel Sprewell added to the team. KG didn't turn that team into anything prior to that, and the team flopped the year after they reached the WCF. I don't consider that to be "dominance". He had one season that was basically comparable to what would be considered an average season for Duncan in terms of success. Mid 50's wins, WCF and done. Average season, and considered a failure of a season for a player like Duncan.


The Boston team also had a lot more turnover than just KG. I think you are giving KG too much credit. Rondo and Perkins became a year older, and a year better. Glen Davis was added. Ray Allen was added. Eddie House was added. Sam Cassell was added. PJ Brown was added. Tom Thibodeau, the well-known defensive mind behind the Celtics' defense, was also added to the team that offseason. KG was not the only new piece. Do not give him all the credit.

I already proved Duncan didn't win with the same team every year, so I'm not sure why you're repeating that [B]lie[/B] of a statement again and acting like somehow ends the discussion. You were wrong again as usual.[/QUOTE]
Lie? He won three championships in his prime after he was an established elite player on the same exact teams(I'm not talking about when he was a rookie on a already great defensive team).

And on those three championship teams in his prime he had the same exact core of players(gino, parker, bowen +role players), the same coach, and the same slow paced style/schemes.

He's been on the same team is whole career and has had the same coach.

KG has been on different teams with completely different players, coaches schemes, and systems and has made both teams contenders.

I don't know what you're arguing here. KG clearly has shown the ability to transverse his game to different systems/teams better than duncan because he has succeeded, in his prime, in different systems and on different teams.

There's no argument here. You're just stanning duncan as usual. Leave the basement for once dawg.:oldlol:

I don't think they'd do very well. KG is injured. Stupid.

[QUOTE=tpols]Lie? He won three championships in his prime after he was an established elite player on the same exact teams(I'm not talking about when he was a rookie on a already great defensive team).

And on those three championship teams in his prime he had the same exact core of players(gino, parker, bowen +role players), the same coach, and the same slow paced style/schemes.

He's been on the same team is whole career and has had the same coach.

KG has been on different teams with completely different players, coaches schemes, and systems and has made both teams contenders.

I don't know what you're arguing here. KG clearly has shown the ability to transverse his game to different systems/teams better than duncan because he has succeeded, in his prime, in different systems and on different teams.

There's no argument here. You're just stanning duncan as usual. Leave the basement for once dawg.:oldlol:[/QUOTE]

Yes lie.

[QUOTE]Duncan's a great player but he's done it on the same team every year like I said before. [/QUOTE]

That's a lie. Period.


As for them being the same teams, wrong again. Parker and Ginobili were nowhere near the same players in 2003 as they were in 2005 and 2007. Ginobili was a rookie, still getting used to the NBA and not getting a lot of touches, and Parker was still a very raw PG that Popovich wanted to trade away to get a better one.

Regardless of this, Duncan has already won titles with COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CORES, 1999 vs 2005 or 2007. No players from the 1999 team were on the 2005 and 2007 teams.

Every single title he's won has had no more than 3 players from the previous title he won on them.

Regardless of all of that, Duncan has won four titles, and contended for a title nearly every single season. You're looking for some cheap way to explain away Duncan's success. The way you always provide arguments (poorly).


[B]What it boils down to is this. KG has won one title, and contended for a title only three times. Two of these three times was with the Celtics. Duncan has won four titles, and contended for a title nearly every single season of his career. You can pretend all you want that Duncan's success "doesn't count" due to some frivelous reason or another, and that KG's lack of success is negated by another frivelous reason. In the end, Duncan was contending for titles for nearly 100% of his career. KG: 20% of his.[/B]

No matter how you may try to spin it, and explain it away, those are facts that you cannot erase. For all of KG's merits that you think are so important such as playing well on two different paced systems (his stats impressive didn't translate, btw), KG was barely a winner throughout his career. Duncan always was. What this means is, Duncan was a huge success in the system provided. KG's teams kept changing around to figure out what would work since barely anything was working. And when it did finally work, it didn't work for more than a season.

Duncan's been good nearly every year. The only times he actually DIDN't contend were when either he, or a key player on his team got injured during or prior to the playoffs. Injuries to Duncan's team were the only things stopping him from contneding.

Try and explain it away all you want with frivelous points. You can't change history. And you can't change what each player has done. Duncan has been better than KG.

Hilarious though, that you've failed so hard in this topic that you're resorting to acting like my destruction of your weak ass points somehow don't matter because I'm a Duncan fan. Nice try, Lakers and Celtics bandwagon troll.

I love Sinjackal's Duncan has won more, therefore he is better argument. In reality, individual players level of play does not boil down to how much they win, as you said.

[QUOTE=hitmanyr2k]The Spurs won titles mainly because of Duncan's low post game and defense. When he sucked in the defensive attention his shooters benefitted from wide open jumpers and moving the ball around before the defense could recover.

I don't think KG is taking down Shaq and the Lakers in '03 with a rookie Ginobili and 2nd year Tony Parker. I doubt KG is taking down the Pistons in 2005 either...even with Ginobili and Parker reaching star status. KG's game is too perimeter oriented...similar to Dirk and Chris Webber. When that jumpshot isn't falling he can't punish a team in the paint the way Duncan can. When you have perimeter players like Ginobili and Parker the last thing you need is a 7 footer out on the perimeter taking long jumpers pretending he's a freakin guard. You need a PF that's gonna go down on the low block, do work and get your team high percentage shots by scoring or sucking in double teams and getting shooters wide open. That's what Duncan did year after year in his prime for the Spurs. You can't replace that with KG.[/QUOTE]

Totally agree. And in the second half of '05 Finals game 7, Duncan got the Pistons' front line in foul trouble, commanding double teams and leading to wide open 3s.

"[B]You could tell when he caught the ball, how much more physical he was, getting in position and bumping and grinding and getting shots and making sure he got toward the rim, so that when people came at him he was in good position to open up a teammate[/B]," Popovich said.

"[B]A lot of the shots they made, open shots, came as a result of us having a hard time guarding him," [Larry] Brown said. "That's why he's such a great player[/B]."

"Rasheed was strapped all game," Brown said. "If you don't have your big people with the ability to play aggressively on Duncan, you've got no shot."

[url]http://www.nba.com/games/20050623/DETSAS/recap.html[/url]